annatar1914 wrote:Well, you're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. What I described are the basic common beliefs of the group of Ideologies called and self described by Fascists as ''Fascism''. If you can agree with most if not all of those common features, you are a genuine ''Fascist''.

Today, rightfully or wrongly, ''Fascism'' and ''Fascist'' have become dirty words used by Liberals and others to hurl at their enemies that have almost lost their original meaning. If you however can basically agree with those ideas, you really are a ''Fascist''. By the way, not all of those points are necessarily bad ones, but sometimes with Fascist intellectuals, you have to pin them down on what some of those things mean to them.

He, Maz & a few others are Fascists, they just don't want to admit to it.

"Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?" Lord Varys, Game of Thrones.For Zionism, Socialism and Brotherhood amongst Nations - Mishmar paper banner, Mapam Party (Israel)

In all honesty, the Social Justice Warriors that work to actively cut the "far right" out of power and do campaigns like "Yes, you're a racist" to get everyday people fired are basically no different from what the Fascists in Spain or South Korea would do in the old days.

Not as extreme as the Stalinists or Nazis who would put people in camps...

But generally speaking, if you want people who were members of the Proud Boys or the EDL or whatever to not be able to find gainful employment and to socially ostracized into the ground, it's pretty much Fascist, right? But, of course, by Fascist I mean authoritarian.

Verv wrote:In all honesty, the Social Justice Warriors that work to actively cut the "far right" out of power and do campaigns like "Yes, you're a racist" to get everyday people fired are basically no different from what the Fascists in Spain or South Korea would do in the old days.

Not as extreme as the Stalinists or Nazis who would put people in camps...

But generally speaking, if you want people who were members of the Proud Boys or the EDL or whatever to not be able to find gainful employment and to socially ostracized into the ground, it's pretty much Fascist, right? But, of course, by Fascist I mean authoritarian.

Not really, no.

Holding people accountable for racism is not he same as oppressing people because of their religion or colour of their skin.

Verv wrote:people who were members of the Proud Boys or the EDL or whatever to not be able to find gainful employment and to socially ostracized into the ground, it's pretty much Fascist, right?

No.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, including the right to accept or decline membership.

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, including the right to accept or decline membership.

... But you can't fire a transgender person or a gay person, even if you are religious and in a small, conservative town, right, because this radical expression is absolutely protected and freedom of association does not apply, right?

... Could you theoretically then fire a gay person not because of their homosexuality, but because of their public advocacy of gay positions, and say that this is protected by your freedom of association?

They have the right to expel you, to tell you to go fuck yourself, if you choose not to.

... and that, my friends, is freedom of association.

It's that sweet "love it or leave it" attitude on a national level...

... Not laws guaranteeing that every individual has the right to run their own business as they like, and to thereby associate their business with those that they like no matter... That's only for select groups of people.

Real freedom of association is I get to tell you who you are free to associate with legally, and if you don't like it, move to Russia.

Verv wrote:... But you can't fire a transgender person or a gay person, even if you are religious and in a small, conservative town, right, because this radical expression is absolutely protected and freedom of association does not apply, right?

... Could you theoretically then fire a gay person not because of their homosexuality, but because of their public advocacy of gay positions, and say that this is protected by your freedom of association?

Surely, you've thought about this angle, right?

There are two significant differences between the two examples of unpopular opinion.

The first is difference is this:

The LGBTQ person is simply asking others to recognise the equality that is their due according to law and your constitution.

The Proud Boy is advocating for others to not have those rights.

The second difference is this:

The LBGTQ person is asking for a social change where people who have been traditionally marginalised would be accepted as equals.

The Proud Boy is asking for a status quo or reactionary stance where people who have been traditionally marginalised would continue to be marginalised or marginalised again.

Free speech means you have to provide me with your platform, listen to what I say, applaud me for being brave, and then I can not be criticized or ostracized for publicly calling for the Holocaust (the real one, not the fake one).

Also Freedom of Association means that I can not be fired for my actions outside of work despite the fact that 1) Conspiratard Nazi is not a protected class and 2) I have spent my entire life voting for right wing politicians who created the "At-Will Employment" laws that govern my employer's right to terminate me.

Commitment to, or even a basic understanding of, the ideals above is optional for me when it's convenient but I will hold you to the highest standards for both, despite my desire to establish an authoritarian government which would abolish these rights for anyone I deem not white enough.

The LBGTQ person is asking for a social change where people who have been traditionally marginalised would be accepted as equals.

They alredy have every right they need like the right for marriege or the right to make their parades (in US and Canada) what else do they want?many people will treat them as freaks becasuse thats what they are and you cant force everyone to like them

Free association, where the government doesn't protect any classes from the whims of business owners.

Free speech, where the government protects the rights of private citizens to speak freely and participate in rallies and not be fired even if their opinion is unpopular but it doesn't affect their work.

I'd say the former is most logical and traditional, but it's the least likely to occur. So, we need the second.

To let the government decide who are protected and who isn't would be against what a liberty oriented republic is about.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Commitment to, or even a basic understanding of, the ideals above is optional for me when it's convenient but I will hold you to the highest standards for both, despite my desire to establish an authoritarian government which would abolish these rights for anyone I deem not white enough.

If it is relevant that a Nazi would be an authoritarian when they assumed power, it'd also be necessary to curb the free speech and rights of people who would also otherwise be authoritarian, right?

Like an Islamic fundamentalist or a Communist.

... But that's not how it works at all because people who do democracy in good will respect free speech unconditionally and don't seek to destroy the lives of people who even believe weird things because they think, in some way, the dialogue of the nation is advanced by all free speech.

If you don't really believe that, then you should take a look in the mirror.

You don't respect free speech as a value, and are disinterested in everyone partaking in it...

But you are very interested in protecting some classes from the consequences that they would face in a society of free association, but very invested in others facing mob rule and mass ostracism for other unpopular ideas.

A principled system doesn't tolerate nazis and makes it unpleasant to be one. I like your new new trend of suddenly becoming interested in criminal justice or free speech and association the second it adversely affects actual nazis.

You don't seem to understand what free association or free speech actually mean and simply want to make nazis a protected class. Your appeals to to some kind of ~higher principal~ mean shit to me because I know that's not what you care about. You care about elevating and defending nazis.

Nazis absolutely deserve to be ostracized. And while it's illegal, mobs should also kick their ass because the one thing we don't have to tolerate is intolerance. If you don't want to be ostracized and shunned then maybe don't publicly advocate fascism and the elimination of large swathes of your fellow citizens.